Helle Hochscheid

Antidotal history

In 1930, the historian, philosopher and archaeologist R.G. Collingwood wrote

When we think of history as merely a trade or profession, a craft or calling, we find it hard to justify our existence as historians. What can the historian do for people except turn them into historians like himself? And what is the good of doing that? (…) It is not simply a vicious circle, whose tendency is (…) to produce an underpaid “intellectual proletariat” of sweated teachers. This may be a valid argument against the multiplication of historians, if history is merely a profession, but it cannot be if history is a universal human interest; for in that case there are already as many historians as there are human beings, and the question is not Shall I be an historian or not? but How good an historian shall I be?
                                   Essays in the Philosophy of History. 1965 (1930), 123-4

As one of the intellectual proletariat of sweated teachers, this comment struck a chord. The idea is that history is a state of being, rather than a discipline or a job. It is about the actions and motivations of historical actors, which we can know because we, too, are actors in this story. History, and archaeology for that matter, are not merely crafts (although there is that, too), they form the ability to re-enact and so reconstruct historical meaning. By doing so we can understand ourselves and our own historical-contemporary action.

Naturally, this is one among many valuable views of what history is and can do. But in this day and age, it is helpful to scrutinize ourselves as historical actors. Last semester, in our ancient history class on Self and Other in the Ancient World students analysed the motivations of the Athenians in the late fifth century BC to vote out their own democracy. An interesting angle came from studies conducted at several US universities on the psychology behind the rise of Donald Trump (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism). In brief, among Trump’s voters were first, a group of people who put great stock by authority and disciplined obedience to it, and second, those who were non-authoritarian, but had become fearful of external, hard to control threats like terrorism. Constant bad news on such topics could drive the latter group into acting like authoritarians. The predictive quality of the study was quite remarkable in the primary, and in the presidential election, as the case now turns out to be.

In Athens in 411 BC, after the loss of a large part of the male citizens, and also male non-citizens in the Sicilian expedition, after several severe epidemics, constant threats and incursions of the Spartans on their territory, and even the permanent take-over of the Attic border town of Dekeleia, the Athenians may have responded in much the same way to economic deprivation, the loss of land and livelihoods, decimation by war and constant psychological pressure. They went for a government of strong leaders, who promised stability and a reversal to traditional greatness.

The crux then is, what will we do? At the upcoming elections? In dealing with the Other, from neighbours to strangers? In questioning our own behaviour? History as envisioned by Collingwood could be something quite useful. It could be an antidote to extremism. Because questioning one’s actions as small pieces in the machinery of time brings temperance, cool-off time, and balance. And most of all, it reduces fear, for it takes the sting out of the unknown. After all, it all happened before, and it will again, as humans are humans and will behave like humans. So, to paraphrase Monty Python’s Life of Brian, ‘Yes, we are all historians!’. Or we should be.

Helle Hochscheid